You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Morals in the Absence of a God
- Thread starter BSFilter
- Start date
Well, let's see... to me they all seem to say exactly what the NIV said in more natural English. How do you see the meaning changed, BSFilter?Oxygen said:Jenyar What version did your Gen 9:5 come from? Here are parallel verses from other versions of the bible that don't imply that an animal will have to account for his or her own life. To me they seem to say (in so many words) "Everybody dies eventually", not "Behave".
Look carefully at each translation again. They all say God will require the same accountabilty from the animal as He requires from the man. I'm curious what you see?
Well from the first two listed...
"At the hand of every beast will I require it."
"from every beast I will take it"
Funny how one word can change the whole meaning of a sentence. But the translations point was meant to consider Ancient translations. I did not make that clear. Most of those quotes are translations from fairly recent texts, not necessarily ancient times.
In the past, the scriptures were translated and altered to fit the culture of the people who desired it. Same basic teaching, modified slightly through translations into various cultures.
"At the hand of every beast will I require it."
"from every beast I will take it"
Funny how one word can change the whole meaning of a sentence. But the translations point was meant to consider Ancient translations. I did not make that clear. Most of those quotes are translations from fairly recent texts, not necessarily ancient times.
In the past, the scriptures were translated and altered to fit the culture of the people who desired it. Same basic teaching, modified slightly through translations into various cultures.
Last edited:
Anyways, back to the thread...
Overall, some interesting thoughts, but there are some problems simply due to the fact that you've failed to differentiate between "ethic" and "moral".
While you're correct that moral behaviour could be said to have preceded religion, you've failed to recognize how this conflicts with the (tenuous) position that humankind shares ethical principles. The difference lies in the fact that "ethic" connotes a systematization of normative moral principles, whereas "moral" has no such implication. Morality is a value-based judgement. Ethic is a truth-functional judgement.
BSFilter said:...
What humans consider moral behavior existed in animals well before any religion wrote them down in scriptures.
...
Yet despite our differences across cultures and religions, we all share a sense of basic ethical principles common to all man-kind (even if we forget/ignore them sometimes).
Overall, some interesting thoughts, but there are some problems simply due to the fact that you've failed to differentiate between "ethic" and "moral".
While you're correct that moral behaviour could be said to have preceded religion, you've failed to recognize how this conflicts with the (tenuous) position that humankind shares ethical principles. The difference lies in the fact that "ethic" connotes a systematization of normative moral principles, whereas "moral" has no such implication. Morality is a value-based judgement. Ethic is a truth-functional judgement.
I know this is off topic, but I'd still like to answer what BSFilter said, since his knowledge obviously affects his writing.
If you still want to believe what you told me and put it in any article or paper, you'll have to support it with facts.
The expression "at the hand of" is easily understood, and it does not change the meaning at all. "He experienced a lot of persecution at the hands of his enemies", means the same as "from his enemies". "At the hand of every beast" means "from every beast". Maybe the problem is that you only looked at English translations, as if English itself is always clear.BSFilter said:Well from the first two listed...
"At the hand of every beast will I require it."
"from every beast I will take it"
Is that a fact, or are you guessing? Newer translations are usually made from older, or more trustworthy texts, as the science of translation progresses and more manuscripts are discovered. Most of the quotes were actually from old translations. Compare for instance the American Standard version Oxygen quoted with the New American Standard version.Funny how one word can change the whole meaning of a sentence. But the translations point was meant to consider Ancient translations. I did not make that clear. Most of those quotes are translations from fairly recent texts, not necessarily ancient times.
Again, are you guessing, or do you have a source for this claim? Of course, translation is nothing but an alteration of a text to fit a culture (since language is cultural), but it's another thing to claim that meanings are purposely changed (when it happens, like the Mormon or Jehova's Witness translations, everybody knows about it - in particular people who consider the original words sacred). Scholars still have the original Hebrew texts, which were copied with such care that when scribes found an error, they left it there and inserted the correct words in the margin. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, showed almost no deviation between copies and originals a thousand years apart. These original language texts are used every time a new translation is made, so most new translations are only one step away from the originals.In the past, the scriptures were translated and altered to fit the culture of the people who desired it. Same basic teaching, modified slightly through translations into various cultures.
If you still want to believe what you told me and put it in any article or paper, you'll have to support it with facts.
Last edited:
Havent you ever played the telephone game? Same idea. Here are just a couple of pages explaining this phenomena, which is by no means new.
http://www.sof-in-australia.org/languageand.htm
http://www.tniv.info/pdf/WhatisBibleTranslation.pdf
Excerpt from first link...
"In the case of the Bible alone, we are talking about changes that have occurred over literally centuries.
Literal Translation?
As one who has spent many years involved in translating materials into other languages (French and Tahitian in our case) I can state quite unequivocally that there is no such thing as a literal or word-for-word translation from one language to another. The differences in the constructions of the various languages and the subtleties of meaning, which can vary so much, make any literal translation quite impossible.
Understanding the Scriptures
What does our awareness of these factors say to us when we try to understand the Scriptures? As I read, I frequently find myself asking questions like: I wonder what word was used in the original language? What did it mean to the people of that time? Was the original word a more formal one or rather more informal “street talk”? Has the meaning changed at all in the centuries since?
The New Testament was written in the common or “street” language of the day. The Greek-speaking world of that time used two forms of the language – a formal version, which was used to write philosophy, history and more academic matters, and an informal version for everyday matters.
Many people are taken aback by the notion that these Scriptures were written in everyday or “street” language. They have become so accustomed to the very formal language of the King James version that they believe that is how it was written in the first place. Yet one look at Jesus shows how he talked with the common people and spoke to them in everyday down-to-earth language – certainly not in the language of early 17th century England!"
http://www.sof-in-australia.org/languageand.htm
http://www.tniv.info/pdf/WhatisBibleTranslation.pdf
Excerpt from first link...
"In the case of the Bible alone, we are talking about changes that have occurred over literally centuries.
Literal Translation?
As one who has spent many years involved in translating materials into other languages (French and Tahitian in our case) I can state quite unequivocally that there is no such thing as a literal or word-for-word translation from one language to another. The differences in the constructions of the various languages and the subtleties of meaning, which can vary so much, make any literal translation quite impossible.
Understanding the Scriptures
What does our awareness of these factors say to us when we try to understand the Scriptures? As I read, I frequently find myself asking questions like: I wonder what word was used in the original language? What did it mean to the people of that time? Was the original word a more formal one or rather more informal “street talk”? Has the meaning changed at all in the centuries since?
The New Testament was written in the common or “street” language of the day. The Greek-speaking world of that time used two forms of the language – a formal version, which was used to write philosophy, history and more academic matters, and an informal version for everyday matters.
Many people are taken aback by the notion that these Scriptures were written in everyday or “street” language. They have become so accustomed to the very formal language of the King James version that they believe that is how it was written in the first place. Yet one look at Jesus shows how he talked with the common people and spoke to them in everyday down-to-earth language – certainly not in the language of early 17th century England!"
Neither of those links describe the telephone game, and you've said nothing new. The informal Greek is called koine Greek, and the dialect of Hebrew they used is called Ancient Aramaic.
With every translation, interpretation is necessary. Actually, you have to interpret your native language as well. What is really important is not that every word is exactly as it was in its original language (although a close proximity is what is referred to as a "literal" translation), but that the meaning gets across. The meaning that the author wished to convey, like your first link says.
Since the original language texts have always been available, every translation is once removed form the source. There is no "chain" involved, in fact, the same message has been disseminated many times to many people, and we have all those accounts to compare with each other (See Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree and variant readings). So it's rather unlike the telephone game (See Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?
With every translation, interpretation is necessary. Actually, you have to interpret your native language as well. What is really important is not that every word is exactly as it was in its original language (although a close proximity is what is referred to as a "literal" translation), but that the meaning gets across. The meaning that the author wished to convey, like your first link says.
Since the original language texts have always been available, every translation is once removed form the source. There is no "chain" involved, in fact, the same message has been disseminated many times to many people, and we have all those accounts to compare with each other (See Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree and variant readings). So it's rather unlike the telephone game (See Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?
Last edited:
Look Im not here to try to convince someone who obviously has no intention of even CONSIDERING the fact that this happens. The article you provide suggests that errors ARE made, even if a small fraction. It is a question of degree, not whether it happens or not.
Obviously it happens to a degree. But if you can see them, you're also aware of them. There's also a lot of in-built redundancy (messages, often whole books are repeated, like Kings and Chronicles, the four gospels, etc.) So if the errors are accounted for, they're not detrimental to the meaning. See?